Madras High Court
Muthaiah vs The State Through The Inspector Of ... on 7 June, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.R.C(MD).No.384 of 2009
Muthaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.,
1.The State through the Inspector of Police,
Munnirpallam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.179 of 2007)
2.Nambi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 401 Code of Criminal
Procedure, to set aside the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.36 of
2008 dated 13.10.2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Malaichamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson (for R1)
Government Advocate
Mr.K.Prabhu (for R2)
ORDER
The revision petitioner is P.W.2 and the father of the deceased Meena. The daughter of the petitioner was murdered on 10.07.2007 at about 10.15 am. Crime No.179 of 2007 was registered http://www.judis.nic.in 2 on the file of the Munnirpallam Police Station. The matter was taken up for investigation and final report was also filed. It was ultimately taken on file by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.36 of 2008. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Exs.P.1 to P19 were marked. M.O.No.1 to M.O.No.6 were also marked. The learned trial Judge, by judgment dated 31.07.2008, acquitted the sole accused of the charges under Sections 302 and 506(i) IPC. Questioning the same, P.W.2/petitioner herein has filed this revision.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The petitioner's counsel would submit that the FIR was registered at the instance of P.W.1 and that he turned hostile. The petitioner submits that the deceased Meena was his daughter and that P.W.1 was her husband. Due to family quarrel, the brother of P.W.1, namely, Nambi/accused herein had beaten the Meena to death. Since P.W.1 wanted to save his brother/accused, he chose to turn hostile.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that not only P.W.1 but also P.W2 was also eyewitness. In fact, in the complaint itself, the presence of petitioner along with his son-in-law is spoken. Therefore, according to the petitioner's counsel, the judgment of acquittal is vitiated.
5.The competence and standing of the petitioner to maintain this revision petition cannot be questioned. It is true that the petitioner is not the defacto complainant. It is true that it is only son-in-law/ husband of the deceased, who lodged the complaint leading to the registration of the FIR. Since he turned hostile, suddenly the father of the deceased has filed revision questioning the judgment of acquittal. But this revision cannot be thrown out on the ground of maintainability.
6.But then as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the very complaint itself appears to be doctored one. It has been convincingly established in evidence that the services of the sniffer dog squad on the forensic http://www.judis.nic.in 4 unit were pressed into service. The Investigating Officer would admit that the sniffer dog was present in the scene of occurrence for an hour and its leads did not lead to anywhere. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision reported in (2003) 12 SCC 449 (Gorle S.Naidu Vs. State of A.P.and others) observed that if the prosecution witnesses had stated before the police the details as contained in the FIR, there was really no necessity of calling the dog squad on the occurrence date. If the dog squad service had been requisitioned, that means the details about the assailant or assailants were not known. But it is seen in the FIR that the respondent herein namely Nambi had been mentioned as the sole accused. If that be so, there was simply no need and necessity for summoning the dog squad. The fact that the dog squad was summoned indicates that the assailants or assailants were not known. Since the sniffer dog could not furnish any useful leads, based on the suspicion or some other subsequent fact, the police had cooked up the entire FIR. In fact, the Court below had clearly mentioned that it has grave doubt about the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.I find no ground to interfere. The judgment of the Court below is well founded. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed accordingly.
07.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rmk To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Munnirpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmk Crl.R.C(MD).No.384 of 2009 07.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in